Tough ties ahead for England's remaining Champions League contenders

So, the theatre (or pantomime) is over. The draws have been made, and the last 16 clubs in the Champions League have found out their fate. And the two remaining English clubs certainly haven’t had it easy.

Chelsea and Arsenal have both landed Italian opposition. Judging from what managers and media had to say on the subject before the draw, the consensus seems to be that this is just about the worst possible outcome. Chelsea will face Napoli, who qualified second in their group at the expense of Manchester City. The Blues seem to have found some good form in recent weeks, but question marks remain over their defence.

Napoli, meanwhile, have looked impressive in their maiden Champions League campaign. They’ll be looking to exploit any defensive lapses with their pacey attacking play, just as they found out group rivals and fellow debutants Manchester City. The Italian club’s own defence has looked solid so far, meaning Chelsea will need to find more creativity if they’re to break them down. Chelsea’s greater Champions League experience may work to their advantage, but it would be dangerous to rely on this to see them through what will be a stern examination.

Lack of experience certainly won’t be a problem for Arsenal’s opponents. AC Milan have long been a fixture in the later stages of the competition, and the seven-time champions will be in no mood for an early exit this time around. Their group form may not have been stellar, with away draws against both BATE and Plzen. But a 2-2 away draw against Barcelona suggests there’s plenty more to come from the Italian champions.

Arsenal qualified comfortably from Group F, going through as group winners with a game to spare, and their domestic form has improved dramatically after a terrible start. And with Robin van Persie scoring goals for fun, they certainly present an attacking threat. But injuries have left them short of full backs, and with van Persie’s injury record there has to be a nagging doubt about where the goals will come from if he is struck down again. The San Siro is a hugely intimidating place to play, so a clean sheet at home will be vital for Arsenal’s chances. It’s certainly a tough ask for what is a relatively inexperienced squad.

Plenty, then, for Messrs Villas-Boas and Wenger to ponder. Meanwhile, for fans, there’s the promise of some great European clashes, and a chance for English football to rebuild its reputation on the toughest stage of all.

Rugby World Cup Final Weekend Preview

After six weeks, 46 matches and what feels like hundreds of stupidly early mornings, the Rugby World Cup final is almost here. I say almost, because before we reach that point there’s the third-place play-off to turn our attention to. The quality of the rugby may have been up and down, but the tournament certainly hasn’t been short of drama. And this weekend should be no different.

First, let’s consider tomorrow’s third-place play-off. There are a couple of things that mystify me about this fixture. The first is, to be honest, why we bother having one in the first place. It seems a bit illogical for club sides to be deprived of their best players for an extra week, and for those players to put their bodies at risk, for what’s essentially a pretty meaningless game. The second is why it's being played on a Friday, when half of the fans will be at work and unable to watch. The final thing that confuses me about this particular game is why people are suddenly referring to it as a ‘bronze medal match’ despite the absence of a bronze medal. The only thing that’s really at stake is that old cliché: pride. But then again, pride can be a powerful thing. And with nothing else to play for, we can hope that both sides will open up and play with the freedom and flair they’ve shown they’re capable of.

Both sides, too, will feel they’ve got something to prove. Wales, of course, will still be hurting after Sam Warburton’s early sending off during their semi-final against France. That red card ignited a wave of outrage directed at referee Alain Rolland, much of it unjustified. Whether or not you think Warburton was unlucky (and for the record, I do), Rolland was acting within the rules of the game as they currently stand. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that issue, there’s no doubt that Warburton’s absence will both strengthen Wales’s desire and weaken their squad. Australia, meanwhile, have so far disappointed in a tournament where they were expected to shine. Much of the blame must be laid at the door of their mercurial fly half Quade Cooper. If he can pull a great performance out of the bag tomorrow, it would bring some sort of redemption, although it won’t make up for the loss to their closest rivals the All Blacks. The match should be fast-paced, with expansive attack matched by heroic defence. Warburton will be a huge loss for Wales, but on form they should still have enough to overcome the misfiring Wallabies.

On to the main event itself, and on paper it looks a pretty one-sided affair. The All Blacks have lived up to their favourites tag with some great performances, showing not just their characteristic skill and directness but an impressive physical presence. France, on the other hand, may be the least deserving finalists in a long time. Well, since England in 2007 anyway. They only scraped through the pool stages thanks to Tonga’s defeat against Canada. England’s implosion eased their passage through the quarter-finals, while that red card certainly helped their chances against Wales. Even so, had more of those Welsh kicks found their target Les Bleus would be facing a different southern hemisphere side this weekend. But then again, this is the French we’re talking about. It’s been said they always have one great performance in them at every World Cup, and we certainly haven’t seen it yet. Personally, I think this kind of turnaround is beyond even France. Even without Dan Carter, New Zealand look set to repeat their triumph of 1987 and maintain their winning record on home soil.

So there are my predictions for the final weekend of Rugby World Cup 2011. We’ll find out soon enough if I have any more success than in the past. This tournament has certainly thrown up plenty of questions, many of which won’t be resolved for some time. By Monday morning, though, we will at least know who’ll have the bragging rights in the rugby world for the next four years.

Rugby World Cup Semi-Finals Preview

So, the tournament marches on. And unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last week, you’ll be aware that, contrary to most people’s predictions (including mine), England aren’t in it. But Wales are still flying the Home Nations flag, and tomorrow they’ll have a chance to reach their first ever World Cup final. I’ll admit I was wrong in three out of my four predictions, but that’s part of what makes rugby so exciting. And hey, you can’t win them all.

First things first – painful as it might be, let’s start with England. Their quarter-final display against France was disappointing at best, shambolic at worst. Even the most blinkered England fan would probably admit they never looked like matching a rejuvenated French outfit. Les Bleus have taken a lot of criticism for their performance in the pool stages, much of it well-deserved. But if there’s anything likely to unite a French side, it’s the prospect of facing England. They pulled themselves together while England fell spectacularly to pieces. The inquest’s already well underway, with Martin Johnson’s job under serious threat. Meanwhile, all France’s previous problems will be forgotten if they can string a couple of good performances together.

The other northern hemisphere clash may have been broadcast at silly o’clock, but it was well worth getting up for. Ireland defence coach Les Kiss predicted a “ding-dong battle”, and he wasn’t wrong. It was a big physical encounter, but unlike the England game, it was also fast-paced and expansive. It was a real clash of rugby cultures, with a young Welsh side taking on an Ireland team full of seasoned operators. Along with the majority, I thought that Ireland’s experience would triumph over Wales’s exuberance. In this case, I’m happy to have been proved wrong. Heroic defence combined with incisive attack saw the Welsh through to their first semi-final since 1987. They’ll face the French on Saturday, and hopes will be high that they can go one better.

Now for a quick brain-teaser: how do you win a rugby match with only 24% possession? No, I don’t know either, but apparently Australia do. Despite looking second-best for much of the game, they somehow edged a tight contest. This is all the more remarkable when you consider that Australia’s backs largely failed to fire. Quade Cooper has a lot to answer for in that respect. Dubbed New Zealand’s Public Enemy Number One, he probably didn’t have many fans in Australia either by the end of the game. How he stayed on the pitch for 80 minutes baffles me. And yet Australia are through, and that’s thanks in large part to the efforts of the talismanic David Pocock. Yes, some of the open side’s burgling at the breakdown may have been distinctly suspect. But let’s not pretend every other back row player isn’t trying to do the same. Knowing how far you can push the boundaries is a big part of rugby, and Pocock and Australia just judged it better.

There was result I managed to get right, but I don’t think many seriously expected Argentina to upset the hosts. I was impressed with the challenge they presented though, especially given the absence of the hugely influential Ignacio Fernandez Lobbe. The final scoreline makes it look like a comfortable victory, but the All Blacks had to work hard for it. And they didn’t come through unscathed. After the much-publicised demise of Dan Carter, New Zealand found themselves short of another fly-half when Colin Slade limped off with a groin injury. These things can sometimes be a blessing in disguise, though, and Slade’s withdrawal provided an opportunity for Aaron Cruden to step in and make his mark. He took it with aplomb, marshalling his backs and controlling the game with a calmness that belied his inexperience.  More serious is Richie McCaw’s nagging foot injury, since the All Blacks look dangerously short of back row cover. With David Pocock in great form, McCaw will have to be at his sharpest when the two teams meet on Sunday.

So, given my (ahem) sparkling form so far, I’ll have a stab at predicting the results of the semi-finals. I’ll go with Wales to beat France, because the Welsh have looked more impressive with every game whereas France’s notorious inconsistency still plagues them. True, they overcame England to get here, but that says more about how poor England were than anything else. Having said that, they might produce the performance of the tournament – you really never know. In the clash of the southern hemisphere giants, I’d expect New Zealand to have too much for an Australian side that’s disappointed so far. A lot will depend on McCaw’s fitness – we all saw what happened when Springbok Heinrich Brussow had to go off last weekend. But unless the Wallabies can quickly rediscover their Tri-Nations form, I expect the hosts to make it to their second final.

As ever, of course, only time and 160 minutes of hard rugby will tell who makes it through. I’ll be watching all the action, and I hope you will too. And we can all breathe a collective sigh of relief that, just for a change, both of the matches are on at a sensible time.

Rugby World Cup Quarter-Finals Preview

Whatever else they may have been, the pool stages of Rugby World Cup 2011 certainly haven’t been dull. With the competition about to enter its knockout phase, it’s an appropriate moment to look back at what we’ve enjoyed, and indeed endured, so far, and to consider what might be coming next.

Let’s kick off (yes I went there) with the pool stages. First of all, I’d like to say how refreshing it’s been to see some genuine upsets in this tournament. One oft-repeated criticism of rugby is that, in the vast majority of cases, results go according to form, so that the sport continues to be dominated by the same small group of superpowers to the exclusion of everyone else. And looking at the list of quarter-finalists this year, you might think that wasn’t too far wrong. But there’s plenty of evidence that the so-called “second tier” nations are often more than capable of competing with the big boys. The final few days of pool matches saw South Africa pushed all the way by Samoa, before a determined Tongan side overcome a woeful French outfit on Saturday. The old elite may still be in charge for now, but there’s plenty of evidence that the rest of the world is catching up fast.

Which brings me to perhaps the most controversial element of this competition: the scheduling. Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu’s ill-judged rant aside, many will feel that the smaller nations have a legitimate gripe against a system that’s landed many of them with a three-day turnaround while their bigger opponents get a week off to recover. But on the other hand, I’ve yet to hear anyone come up with a convincing alternative. Giving everyone a week off would mean the tournament would drag on interminably, and no-one wants that. In the absence of an agreed-on solution, this is a debate that looks set to run and run.

But enough about what’s already happened – let’s look ahead to this weekend’s action. The quarter-finals get underway with a clash of two in-form teams as Ireland take on Wales. This is a tough one to call. Wales looked strong coming into the tournament and have built on that promise with some impressive displays. They’re a youthful team but one that’s playing with impressive maturity, as personified by their outstanding captain Sam Warburton. Ireland, meanwhile, lost all four of their warm-up games before coming from nowhere to stun Australia 15-6. Since then they haven’t looked back, and a comprehensive 36-6 win over Italy last time out showed just how far they’ve come. The battle of the back rows is going to be key, with Dan Lydiate, Warburton and Toby Faletau squaring up to Stephen Ferris, Sean O’Brien and Jamie Heaslip. At fly half it’s youth versus experience, with the impressive Rhys Priestland lining up against seasoned campaigner Ronan O’Gara. It has all the makings of a Celtic classic. I’m going with Ireland to win, just because experience often tells in knockout rugby. But it’ll be close, and expect plenty of fireworks along the way.

At the other end of the spectrum, we find two teams that have really struggled for form. On the one hand, England’s discipline has caused them plenty of problems both on and off the field. On the other, France appear to have imploded in spectacular fashion, epitomised by their 19-14 defeat to Tonga last week. But then the French team’s weakness can also be their greatest strength: unpredictability. Never underestimate the potential of the French to unite around their common hatred of the English. And if everything finally starts to flow for Les Bleus, then it could spell trouble for Martin Johnson’s men. But then again, England have World Cup history on their side. In knockout matches, they’re generally pretty good at beating the French. They’ve also shown in recent weeks that, it nothing else, they know how to grind out a result. Discipline will be an important issue, as will goal-kicking (whoever gets handed the responsibility). England to win for me – just don’t expect it to be pretty.

Sunday sees the southern hemisphere take centre stage. First up it’s Australia against South Africa, a match-up that before the tournament would have had us drooling in anticipation (and probably confidently predicting a win for the Wallabies). How things change. For me, Australia’s performance so far has been one of the biggest disappointments of this competition. A young Wallabies side has been made to look naïve and inexperienced at times, notably against Ireland where they contributed significantly to their own downfall. True, they haven’t been helped by injuries, but then what team hasn’t had that problem? At the moment Australia look like a team searching for direction, and if they want to play the kind of creative, attacking rugby we saw in the Tri-Nations then they need to find it soon. Meanwhile, the Springboks came through the Group of Death fairly unscathed despite being run close by both Wales and Samoa. The major exception to this, of course, is the loss of the influential Frans Steyn. The Springboks looked vulnerable against both Wales and Samoa, and in both cases it was their defence that helped them hold on for the win. There’s a good reason why they’ve conceded the fewest points of any team ever in the pool stages. And it’s this that I think will see them through to the semi-finals, barring a return to pre-tournament brilliance from the men in gold.

And so we come at last to the hosts themselves. The All Blacks go into Sunday’s game against Argentina still reeling from the loss of playmaker and talisman Dan Carter. Without him, they still have a formidable group of players, and to write them off now would be foolish indeed. But people will look at them now and think that they look just a little bit more beatable. And that must be what the Pumas are pinning their hopes on. Contepomi and co have done well to make it this far after their own star fly half Juan Martin Hernandez was ruled out of the tournament through injury. They’ll certainly give the All Blacks a physical battle, but it seems unlikely they’ll be able to compete in the backs. New Zealand have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to powerful, skilful centres and wingers, not to mention having the luxury of choosing between Mills Muliaina and Israel Dagg at full back. Argentina will put in a valiant performance, but I expect it to be pretty comfortable for the hosts.

But of course, only the next 48 hours will show who’s called it right and wrong this time around. There’s been plenty of tension, nerves, frustration and joy so far, and there’s plenty more to come yet. I’ll be watching it all, and I hope you’ll join me. Time to set the alarm.

Rugby World Cup 2011: the big kickoff beckons

It’s that time again. Four years on from the Springboks’ triumph in Paris, the eyes of the rugby world are turning to New Zealand, where the seventh Rugby World Cup kicks off in just over twelve hours’ time.

There has been a lot of talk in the buildup to this tournament. Will the All Blacks be able to shake off their World Cup jinx and triumph on home soil for the second time? Will a maturing Australia side have the fire power to secure a record third win? And how will the Home Nations fare, particularly given the injuries that have blighted their preparations?

Let’s start with the hosts and perennial favourites. Since their triumph in the inaugural competition in 1987, the All Blacks have had an unfortunate reputation for producing great performances everywhere except where it really counts. But this time, we’re told, it’s going to be different. Certainly the signs are good. There’s been more consistency in selection than in the past, and the star turns have kept (relatively) healthy and kept performing. But therein lies a potential problem – what happens when one of their stars, say Richie McCaw or Dan Carter, gets injured? In some positions, particularly the crucial fly half spot, they look dangerously short of cover, with Colin Slade putting in a less than impressive performance in their Tri-Nations clash against South Africa. Will this lack of depth in key positions come back to haunt the hosts as the tournament enters the knockout phase?

If the All Blacks do come unstuck, then Australia are many people’s favourites to lift the trophy. It’s not hard to see why: a Wallabies side that always had plenty of flair has developed in the last twelve months into a unit formidable in both defence and attack. Their forwards can no longer be bullied into submission, while their backs have been firing on all cylinders thanks in large part to a seemingly telepathic understanding between their half-backs. They will have been boosted by their first Tri Nations title in ten years, sealed with a dramatic 25-20 win over New Zealand. Some will believe the Wallabies are still too inexperienced and their forwards still too lightweight to go all the way, but not many would be foolish enough to write them off.

And what of the defending champions? South Africa’s style of play may not endear them to many people, but there’s no denying that it’s often proved effective. Most recently it earned them an 18-5 win over New Zealand. While many (including me) will have found long periods of the match less than enthralling, there’s no denying the magnitude of their achievement. Questions remain, though, over the form of the current crop of Springboks. In particular, you could be forgiven for wondering whether an ageing squad has the stamina to make it through six weeks of gruelling competition. There’s also the uncertainty surrounding John Smit, who has retained the captaincy despite potentially losing his starting place to Bismarck du Plessis. The Springboks will provide plenty of bruising, full-blooded action, and in Morne Steyn they have someone who can keep the scoreboard ticking over. No team has ever successfully defended a world title, though, and it’s still doubtful whether they have enough dimensions to their play to become the first.

Of the Home Nations, England look best-placed to top their group, although they’ll have to overcome first Argentina and then neighbours and fierce rivals Scotland. England have had their fair share of injury problems, with captain Lewis Moody and wing Mark Cueto missing their opening match. Their run-in has been patchy too, with a narrow victory over Wales at Twickenham followed by defeat in Cardiff a week later. They finished on a high, though, with their first away win over Ireland since 2003. England’s midfield has come in for a lot of criticism in recent times, much of it justified, but the new centre pairing of Mike Tindall and Manu Tuilagi looked promising on its first outing. England have always been strong in the forwards and difficult to break down; the question is whether they can show the creativity and clinical execution required to get past the top teams.

Scotland, England’s companions in Pool B, have also had some encouraging recent results. They may only have had two warm-up games to prepare for the tournament, but victories over Ireland and Italy will give them a lot of belief that they can maintain their record of reaching the quarter-finals in every World Cup. To do so they’ll have to overcome either England or Argentina, but on recent form that shouldn’t be beyond them. After that, anything could happen, but they look to lack the attacking firepower to repeat their semi-final appearance of 1991. Meanwhile Wales have shown they have the potential to cause anyone problems, but only if all their key players can find their form at the same time, and if they can find the consistency to navigate the so-called Group of Death. And Ireland have endured a torrid time of late, losing all four of their warm-up games and having two thirds of their first-choice back row sidelined through injury. Some promising signs, then, for the Home Nations, but few will be predicting a Northern Hemisphere champion in 2011.

So, the pundits, the predictors and the ex-pros have all had their say, and everyone’s got their opinion on how the tournament’s going to pan out. The only thing we know for certain is that, at 0930 BST tomorrow, the talking stops, and the rugby finally begins.

Weekly Sports Update: 17th August

Big kickoff leaves plenty to ponder for season ahead

After all the hysterical headlines during the week, the start of the Premiership season actually went remarkably smoothly, with only Spurs’ match against Everton being postponed. It’s always entertaining to check the Premiership table after the first weekend (any bets on how long Bolton will last at the top?), but the opening fixtures can tell us a lot about how the season’s shaping up.

First, it looks like the newly promoted sides are going to struggle. For QPR and Swansea it was a baptism of fire, with both going down 4-0 and QPR having a man sent off into the bargain. Norwich City bucked the trend, though, managing a 1-1 draw away at Wigan. Last season the struggle for survival was at least as exciting as the race for the title – let’s hope it’s another closely-fought contest, and that at least one of the Premier League’s new boys can make the top flight their permanent home.

Second, the eclipse of London by Manchester continues apace. After United’s triumph in the Community Shield, it was the blue half of the city that was celebrating after they thrashed Swansea on Monday night. Combine that with the Reds producing an assured, if less spectacular, win over West Brom, this should be a rivalry to savour.

The London clubs, meanwhile, have found the start of proceedings considerably tougher. While Spurs’ opener has been put on hold, Chelsea could only manage a draw away at Stoke and Arsenal played out a bad-tempered goalless draw at Newcastle. With the loss of Cesc Fabregas now confirmed and the departure of Samir Nasri rumoured to be imminent, it looks like there are tough times ahead for the Gunners. Combine this with an unconvincing display against Udinese in the first leg of their Champions League qualifier last night and it’s not surprising that some have suggested Arsene Wenger’s position may be under threat.

Finally, it looks like there’ll be a few new household names by the end of this season. In terms of new signings, Manchester City’s Sergio Aguero made an instant impact, announcing his arrival with two goals in a standout individual performance. Meanwhile, Manchester United are setting the early pace in terms of developing young players. The inclusion of Tom Cleverley in the England squad for last week’s cancelled friendly was fully deserved after his efforts in the Community Shield. How easily new players, whether new signings or products of academies, adjust to life in the Premier League will have a major impact on how their teams fare.

So, the Premier League circus has rolled into town once again. Its opening weekend eventually faced far less disruption than had been feared, and as ever it supplied us with plenty of talking points. Of course, it’s too early to say much consequence about the season ahead, but a few general trends are discernible. Above all, it looks set to be a season full of twists, turns and a few surprises. Just what we’d expect from the best and most exciting league in the world.

A backward step for English rugby?

Being an English rugby fan has always been a bit of a rollercoaster. From game to game, the team’s performances can provoke dizzying elation or gut-wrenching despair, with consecutive performances often differing so widely that it’s hard to believe you’re watching the same team.

The experience of watching England slump to a 19-9 defeat against Wales in Cardiff definitely fell into the gut-wrenching despair category. Or perhaps despair is too strong a word: a more accurate description might be frustration. At times in the past year or so, England have shown glimpses of real flair and ambition, and what’s more, of clinical execution. Sadly, those glimpses have been all too rare, and on Saturday they were almost entirely absent. What we got instead was a reminder of why it’s best to clear the area of breakable objects before watching England play, just in case you feel tempted to hurl them at the TV.

Put simply, England were impotent. Their forwards dominated at the set piece but didn’t have the control to finish off the chances they created, while the back line lacked any creative spark. Take nothing away from Wales, who defended manfully and took their chances well, but England looked clueless in attack and, perhaps more worryingly, were also exposed in defence. Afterwards, Martin Johnson admitted there were things to work on, but it will take more than head-scratching and beard-stroking to make England a force in New Zealand.

Which is not to say that it’s impossible. We should consider the mitigating circumstances which, although they cannot excuse, can at least help to account for England’s poor performance in Cardiff. One is the sheer scale of the personnel changes made between the Twickenham match and the return fixture. No fewer than thirteen changes were made to England’s starting line-up, with only Alex Corbisiero and Matt Banahan retaining their places. It’s hard to achieve consistent results when there’s such inconsistency in terms of selection. England have also been hampered by injuries, most recently to Danny Care, although of course they’re far from unusual in this.

Several factors should also help boost England in the days and weeks ahead. One of the most important is the expected recovery of injured trio Andrew Sheridan, Lewis Moody and Ben Youngs, all surely set for a place in the squad. Another is that, as long-suffering England fans are well aware, a week is a long time in rugby. A good performance against Ireland in Dublin next weekend will see England head off to the World Cup full of confidence, with Saturday’s abject display all but forgotten. But then again, another poor display would see many write off their chances before the tournament’s even begun.

That’s perhaps the most frustrating thing about this England side: you just never know. And in a World Cup, inconsistency can be a fatal weakness. We’ll just have to hope the right England team turns up on the day. And hide anything fragile, just in case.

England's cricketers claim top spot

England’s cricketers are literally on top of the world. A totally dominant performance at Edgbaston, where they won by an innings and 242 runs with a  day to spare, confirmed that whatever the outcome of this week’s final Test at the Oval, England are now the world’s number one-ranked Test side.

And now for the question that inevitably follows: do they deserve it? Has this series been a magnificent English display that would have swept any team aside, or the humiliation of an exhausted and demoralised Indian side who had waved the white flag long before this point?

The truth, as always, probably lies somewhere between these two extremes. There’s no question India were poor at times, but England showed a single-mindedness in the pursuit of victory that has often been lacking in previous sides. They also seem to have moved past relying on just one or two star players to get them out of trouble. If one player has an off day, Alistair Cook in the first two Tests against India being a notable example, there are ten others ready to pick up the slack.

One of the key attributes in England’s assault on the number one ranking has been consistency. After all, this is an England team that has been winning Tests for a while now. They haven’t lost a Test series in over two years, during which time they became the first English side since 1987 to win the Ashes in Australia. There’s also been consistency in terms of personnel, with a well-developed coaching setup and an established core group of players helping to build a solid foundation for success. This also means that any player who does go through a lean spell knows that they’ll be given time to play themselves back into form (witness Cook’s outstanding 294 in the third Test against India).

Of course, there’ll always be those who argue that England have simply profited from others’ weaknesses. It’s certainly true that the Australian side that England defeated Down Under were a far cry from the dominant force of the late 1990s, and the India team that rolled over and capitulated in this series struggled for both form and morale. But you can only beat the team that’s put in front of you, and for some time now that’s exactly what England have done.

Which brings me to the second inevitable question: now that England have made it to the top of the rankings, can they stay there? There will certainly be huge challenges ahead. Winning away will always be a struggle, particularly against South Africa, who they only managed to draw with last time around. And as injuries take their toll, the depth of England’s squad is bound to be tested. One thing’s for certain: England may be on top of the world right now, but to prove they’re really world-beaters they’ll have to stay there. And that’s where the true test begins.

Welcome to the new and improved Live Sport, Write Sport!

Welcome to my new, improved and extra shiny blog!

Apologies for the longer than usual absence - as you can see, the blog's been undergoing a bit of a redesign. This is now complete, and there's lots of new content to go with the new look.

If you want to keep up to date with the latest from Live Sport, Write Sport, why not select the 'follow by email' option on this page? That way, you'll get an email to let you know every time I've uploaded something new. Alternatively, you can follow me on Twitter and I'll tweet a link to any new content.

Feel free to explore, and as always, if you've got any comments or suggestions, just let me know. I hope you enjoy your visit and please come again!

Weekly Sports Update 4: 02/08/11 Part 2

This week’s top story has to be England’s win in the second Test against India, so I decided to focus on that for this week’s article. Here I’ll look at the reasons behind England’s victory, some areas of concern for the home side and whether England really have what it takes to become the world’s number one Test team. As ever, feel free to leave any comments or suggestions below, and if you like what you see, why not become a follower?

England took a major step towards replacing India at the top of the world Test rankings with an emphatic win at Trent Bridge. It took just four days for the hosts to wrap up a 319-run victory and take a 2-0 lead in the four-match series.

As clear-cut as this sounds, this was far from being a straightforward victory. England had to be rescued by some individual heroics, notably from Broad and Bresnan, and they were also helped by an Indian side who were poor in several areas. Concerns also remain for the home side, with injuries and a lack of form both having the potential to cause problems. So, essentially, let’s not get carried away and claim this was a perfect performance.

I say that first of all because, to be honest, it’s hard not to get carried away. After all, England have just beaten the world’s top Test side by a huge margin. Yes, there were some major scares along the way. England needed a quick-fire 50 from Stuart Broad to spare their blushes in the first innings. Broad then had to produce some of his best bowling, including a hat-trick, to keep the hosts within touching distance at the halfway stage. But that’s the sign of a great side – when they seem to be struggling, key players are able to lift their game and get things back on track.

It’s this trait that separates the world’s best sides from all the others. And it’s one that England have demonstrated time and again so far in this series. Take the first innings here: England had been reduced to 124-8 at tea on day one before Broad’s 64 helped steer them to a more respectable 221 all out. He then produced a great display with the ball, including five wickets for no runs in sixteen deliveries, to reduce India to 288 all out and keep England in with a chance.

An eventful second innings saw the home side capitalise on that to reach 544, setting India a target of 478 to win. This achievement was even more impressive given the poor form that continued to dog England’s openers, particularly Alistair Cook who made just seven runs in the entire match. Enter Ian Bell, who has struggled when batting at number three in the past, who silenced his critics with a confident and stylish 157. An excellent 90 from Tim Bresnan and some woeful fielding piled on the misery for India, whose bowlers looked to have run out of ideas as England reached a daunting total of 544.

It would be wrong not to pause here and consider the controversy surrounding the dismissal and subsequent recalling of Ian Bell. This one seems to have split the pundits, with some praising Indian captain M. S. Dhoni for upholding the spirit of the game and others criticising his failure to uphold a legitimate appeal. I don’t intend to wade into this debate, other than to express my relief that it didn’t have a significant impact on the outcome of the match. No-one, I would hope, would seriously try to argue that had Bell’s dismissal been upheld, India would have fought back to win the match. It was a confusing and potentially ugly incident, but it was quickly resolved (whatever you think of the decision) and ultimately proved largely irrelevant.

So, on to India’s second innings. The visiting side never looked likely to reach their target, and their hopes of even coming close were dealt a serious blow when Broad removed Rahul Dravid for just six runs. England’s seamers piled on the pressure, and before long V. V. S. Laxman’s middle stump was sent flying by a great delivery from James Anderson. But the day belonged to Tim Bresnan, the Yorkshireman (on Yorkshire day – who knew that existed until yesterday?) taking his first ever Test match five-wicket haul. The one bright spot for India was a half-century from Sachin Tendulkar, but even that brief show of defiance came to an end after a poor leave trapped him lbw from the bowling of Broad. With the great man gone it was simply a question of how long it would take England to wrap things up. Appropriately, it fell to man of the match Broad to do the honours, bowling Sreesanth to leave India on just 158 all out.

There’s no doubt that this was an impressive victory, secured by a team that is staking its claim to be the world’s best. But it was also a sorry defeat for a team that has failed to fire so far in this series. It’s true that India have suffered from injury and illness to key players, but so have England. As I’ve mentioned, it’s how they react in moments of adversity that separates the best from the rest, and India’s response to losing Zaheer Khan, and to poor performances from their leading batsmen, has placed them decidedly in the latter category. It seems highly likely that England will replace India as the world’s top Test team after this series. If that happens, few will deny that they deserve it.

Weekly Sports Update 4: 02/08/11 Part 1

Weekly Sports Update 3: 26/07/11 Part 2

This week I’ve decided to focus on the Diamond League athletics in Monaco, an important meeting in the run-up to the World Championships next month. As well as looking at the meeting itself, I wanted to consider the effect that a spate of injuries to top competitors will have on the level of competition, and whether the profile of the World Championships will be affected by the absence of some of the great rivalries that make athletics so entertaining.

The countdown to the World Championships continued on Friday with an eventful Diamond League meeting in Monaco.

The sporting action was nearly overshadowed by a bizarre incident involving two French athletes. After the men’s 1500m race, France’s Mehdi Baala and Mahiedine Mekhissi-Benabbad came to blows and had to be separated by officials. Both men have since been provisionally suspended.

However, this incident should not be allowed to obscure what was a hugely entertaining evening of athletics. For British fans, there was plenty to cheer about, most notably another excellent performance from Mo Farah. Farah produced a great performance to beat a world-class field and win the 5000m, setting a new British record in the process. Based on recent evidence, Farah’s move to the USA seems to be paying dividends, and he must now be regarded as a strong gold medal contender in Daegu.

The performance of Tiffany Ofili-Porter in the 100m hurdles also provided encouragement. The former American had struggled to find her best form at previous meetings, but she too produced a record-breaking run to finish third behind Australia’s Sally Pearson and American Kellie Wells. Meanwhile, Phillips Idowu shrugged off his ongoing dispute with head of UK Athletics Charles van Commenee to win the triple jump with a leap of 17.36m.

However, Idowu’s victory also signified another prevalent trend ahead of the World Championships. This trend will be of concern to Diamond League organisers, as it has the potential to undermine the basis of the series itself. It can be described as the lack of those big rivalries, those titanic head-to-head battles, that can really ignite a competition. The Diamond League was supposed to provide more of these, but its record so far has been mixed. It’s not the organisers that are responsible, but rather that constant fear that lurks in the mind of every athlete: injury.

It’s because of injuries that we’ve been deprived of some of those great head-to-head contests. This can be seen most clearly in the sport’s highest-profile event, the men’s 100m. Here, an injury to Usain Bolt at the beginning of the season meant the two hardly raced each other, and now a hip injury to Tyson Gay means that they will not meet at the World Championships either. The 100m will still be a hugely exciting event, but there’s no doubt that this is a major blow.

And this isn’t the only event to be affected. The men’s triple jump has been one of the most entertaining events of this season, largely thanks to the absorbing battle between Phillips Idowu and Teddy Tamgho. Tamgho’s season-ending injury is, in one way, good news for British athletics fans, in that it makes a gold medal in Daegu more likely. However, it also deprives Idowu of the chance to prove himself on the world stage against his greatest rival. It also takes a lot of the edge off the competition. It’s hard not to imagine that, had Tamgho been there in Monaco, Idowu would have needed more than the 17.36m he produced to secure victory. Great rivalries force athletes to push themselves to the limit; in their absence things can be a bit too easy.

But it’s not all doom and gloom. Certainly, to claim that the World Championships will be seriously damaged by lack of competition would be to go much too far. For one thing, the absence of a great name can inspire other, lesser-known athletes to produce great performances. Look at the men’s 100m: the headlines will say it was another victory for Usain Bolt, but he was pushed all the way by his countryman Nesta Carter who finished just 0.02s behind him. It would be disrespectful to the athletes to suggest that an event is devalued by the absence of one headline-grabbing competitor. These days, the general skill level is so high that there are plenty of worthy replacements ready to step in if a big name has to pull out.

The problem is that, with the sport aiming to increase its public profile ahead of London 2012, athletics needs all the headlines it can grab. And, unfair as it may be, people simply aren’t as interested in people they haven’t heard of. A World Championships with no Bolt v Gay and no Idowu v Tamgho will be no less significant, and probably no less entertaining. We’ll just have to hope that the viewing public give the athletes a chance to prove that.

Weekly Sports Update 3: 26/07/11 Part 1

Weekly Sports Update 2: 19/07/11 Part 2

For this week I decided to split the video and article slightly differently, using the video bulletin to give a general overview and the article to develop a specific story in more detail. This week I’ve chosen the Women’s World Cup, and looked at what the tournament has done for the profile of women’s football, particularly in this country. As ever, please leave any comments or suggestions below.

So, the Women’s World Cup is over, and it could hardly have had a more fitting finale. Japan, not highly fancied coming into the tournament, have won many fans with their technical ability and dogged determination, and on Sunday night those attributes won them the greatest prize of all. They defeated the world’s number one-ranked team, the United States, for the first time in 26 meetings to become world champions.

Only the most committed of cynics could fail to be moved by such a story. And its poignancy is only enhanced when you find out that to motivate his players before the match, Japan’s coach Norio Sasaki had shown them footage of the areas devastated by March’s earthquake and tsunami – footage that reduced some of the players to tears. On the pitch, the match had all the drama we could have hoped for, with Japan twice having to come from behind to force a penalty shootout. And the obvious joy of the Japanese players afterwards, along with the Americans’ grace in defeat, provided an appropriate ending.

The competition certainly finished in style, then. But what about the World Cup as a whole, and particularly the ambitious claims about what it would do for the profile of women’s football? With the new Women’s Super League halfway through its first season, hopes were high in the British media that this would be a real breakthrough year for women’s football in this country. So has it lived up to expectations?

Let’s deal with the obvious issue first – no, England didn’t win the World Cup. In fact, they didn’t make it beyond the quarter-finals, losing to France to the obvious distress of players and coaches. However, in many ways that loss, and particularly the manner in which it occurred, may turn out to be good for the England women’s team. After all, being dumped out of a major tournament on penalties puts them firmly in line with English footballing tradition. England’s women may not be world champions, but long-suffering supporters of the men’s team will feel a certain comfort in experiencing the same sense of inevitable disappointment with which they are so familiar.

We all know, though, that it’s not just the team you follow that keeps you interested in a sport. It’s just as much about the individuals, and here too the World Cup has been vital. This has been the first tournament for which England have had real depth in their squad, so that for the first time there’s been genuine competition for places. This will have led those watching to engage with the players on a more personal level. Put simply, knowing that a player’s only on the pitch because they’re good enough to be there, and that a poor game could result in them being dropped, encourages you to invest emotionally in their success.

It also encourages armchair experts. And let’s face it, we all like to feel like experts. I’d hardly watched a game of women’s football before this tournament (largely because of the lack of television coverage, but we’ll get to that later), but that didn’t stop me sitting in front of my TV halfway through England’s first match shouting “Eni Aluko’s having a bad game, get Faye White on!” And now that I, and thousands of others, know the players’ names, we’ll be far more likely to listen out for news of them, and maybe follow the progress of their clubs. One of the most appealing things about sport is that it provides us with individual stories to follow. For women’s football, the hope must be that interest in those stories does not fade with the memory of events in Germany.

For the health of the sport internationally, too, this tournament has provided many encouraging signs. Attendances at matches were consistently above the 20 000 mark, with a remarkable 70 000 at the opening game and nearly 49 000 watching last night’s final. And from personal experience, it does seem that this competition has got more people interested in the game. Demands of “How are the girlies doing?”, frequently heard around my house during England’s campaign, may not be the most politically correct formulation of this interest, but that’s not really the point. The point is that a competitive England outfit alongside an exciting and well-organised tournament really can boost the profile of the sport.

So just how much of a boost has the World Cup given women’s football? That, of course, won’t really be known for some time. In this country, one important indicator will be the success or otherwise of the Women’s Super League. It will be fascinating to see whether the exposure that the national side have gained thanks to the World Cup translates into more people going out and watching women’s club football on a regular basis. The catalyst provided by the World Cup might help with this, but it certainly won’t be enough on its own to make the league successful. Neither will it be enough to ensure that more people will take a sustained interest in England’s fortunes now that the tournament is over. As I suggested above, in the past a big part of the problem has been the sporadic nature of television coverage, even of important international matches. The quantity of women’s football on our screens has increased markedly this year. It remains to be seen if this trend will be sustained.

Overall, though, the signs are encouraging. Even if the effect is short-lived, the World Cup has got more people watching, talking about and appreciating women’s football. It doesn’t seem too much to hope that for some this competition has marked the start (or the continuation) of a real love of the women’s game. But of course the real test is whether this tournament, and all the other progress the sport is making in this country, encourages more girls to go out and play football. Will the World Cup help inspire a new generation to take up the sport, and to keep it up until they too step out onto the international stage? That’s something we won’t know for many years to come.

Weekly Sports Update 2: 19/07/11 Part 1

Weekly Sports Update 1: 11/07/11 Part 2

Apologies for the extended absence – a few minor inconveniences called finals had to be dealt with. All done and back to blogging now though, and posts from now on will have an exciting new format (my limited technical skills permitting). Each week there’ll be a video bulletin covering the week’s biggest sports news, accompanied by an article dealing with some of the stories that don’t hit the headlines but still deserve to be addressed. If you’ve got any suggestions for content, just leave a comment below.

It’s been an eventful week in the world of sport. The British Grand Prix, women’s world cup, ODI and Test cricket and Diamond League athletics have been discussed in the video bulletin above. However, there’s plenty more to talk about, both in the public eye and behind the scenes.

In rugby, this weekend saw the conclusion of the Super Rugby season, with the final between the Queensland Reds and the Canterbury Crusaders in Brisbane on Saturday. It was a tense affair with plenty of errors from both sides, and it was impossible to separate the teams on the scoreboard until Will Genia’s solo try from 65 metres. The Reds held on for the last ten minutes to secure an 18-13 victory and their first Super Rugby title in the professional era.

Closer to home, this week saw further developments in the turmoil engulfing the RFU. Chairman Martyn Thomas stepped down on Sunday following a report by the RFU’s disciplinary officer Judge Jeff Blackett into former chief executive John Steele’s departure in June. Thomas will stay on as acting chief executive until a permanent replacement for Steele is found. The rest of the management board survived after a vote of no confidence was defeated. However, this spells more bad news for English rugby’s governing body, which, with the world cup in New Zealand just weeks away, finds several of its key management positions unfilled.

Meanwhile, there was some good news for anyone still mourning Andy Murray’s exit from Wimbledon. Murray was in Davis Cup action for Great Britain this week, and his two singles wins combined with victory in the doubles alongside brother Jamie were enough to ensure the British team of victory over Luxembourg. Murray broke down in tears after his straight sets win over Gilles Muller in front of a home crowd in Glasgow. James Ward also won his second singles match to seal a convincing 4-1 victory. Great Britain will now face Hungary on 16-18 September in a bid to secure promotion to Europe/Africa Group I.

Scotland played host to another major sporting event this week. The Scottish Open at Castle Stuart faced serious disruption and eventually had to be shortened to 54 holes after bad weather caused flooding and even landslides on the course. Play was eventually able to resume, however, and in the end it was world number one Luke Donald who came out on top, finishing four shots clear on nineteen under par. Donald will now aim to become the first English winner of the Open at Sandwich since 1992, and the first British champion since 1999. The competition should be intense, with US Open champion Rory McIlroy another prominent British challenger. Colin Montgomerie will miss out, though, after failing to secure the top-five finish he needed to secure a place at Sandwich.

Meanwhile, it’s been a week of drama in the Tour de France. There were mixed emotions for Team Sky, as their first ever stage win was followed by a crash involving star rider Bradley Wiggins. Three-time Olympic gold medallist Wiggins suffered a broken collarbone during the seventh stage, which was eventually won by Mark Cavendish. An accident marred the ninth stage after a crash involving a television vehicle sent two riders, Juan Antonia Flecha and Johnny Hoogerland flying across the road, with Hoogerland hitting a barbed wire fence. Tour organisers took the car off the race following this incident. The Tour continues, and it seems certain that the controversy is far from over.

It’s been an exciting week, then, in all sorts of ways. From football to cycling, F1 to rugby and tennis to golf, there’s been no shortage of stories. I’m aware that there’s plenty more I haven’t covered – the rowing World Cup event in Lucerne to give just one example. In a way, though, that’s a positive thing. After all, if the sporting events of a week could be covered in a single blog, the world of sport wouldn’t be a very interesting place, would it? 

Weekly Sports Update 1: 11/07/11 Part 1

Kicking sexism out of sport

This article was written in response to the controversy surrounding the comments of Richard Keys and Andy Gray about match official Sian Massey. Rather than focusing on this single incident, though, I've taken a wider view, looking at the position of women in sport more generally, what has improved and what still needs to be done. First published here 30/01/11.

The storm surrounding the Sian Massey affair continues to rage. Andy Gray has been sacked by Sky Sports, while Richard Keys has resigned. This is not the place to discuss the details of the case, which have been thoroughly covered elsewhere. Instead, I will examine what this incident reveals about attitudes to women in football, and how this relates to the situation in other sports. In particular, I will be asking why sexist attitudes have endured longer in some sports than others, and what can be done to ensure that such attitudes are finally eradicated.

First, though, a word about the comments that have placed this issue firmly in the spotlight. As far as I am concerned, the issue here is not whether Keys and Gray intended their remarks to be broadcast, or whether they were speaking in a serious or a light-hearted manner. The fact is that two experienced and senior sports broadcasters felt that it was acceptable to question a female official’s right to be on the pitch, simply on the basis of her gender. The fact that these comments were made before the match had even started is especially disappointing.

Unfortunately, football is not the only sport in which such views still persist. When I interviewed Gavin Hastings OBE, ex-Scotland and British and Irish Lions captain, he had some very decided opinions on the role of women in rugby. In particular, he stated that women should not play fifteen-a-side rugby because it was “too technical” and “too difficult” for them to understand.

What is particularly concerning about both of these examples is that it was the mental capacity of women that was being questioned. In both cases, there was an assumption that women simply are not capable of grasping the complexities of the sport in question, and that therefore it would be better for all concerned if they just left it to the men.

Such an attitude would be unthinkable in other sports. In the vast majority of cases, the right of women to participate as players and officials, and their fitness to do so, is not questioned. So what is behind these more accepting attitudes? Put simply, equality of opportunity has allowed women to prove themselves on the same stage as their male counterparts, and this in turn has bred acceptance of their role.

Female athletes and tennis players, for example, are professionals just like the men, and both sexes can expect the same levels of funding and support. Meanwhile, female officials are active and respected in these sports and many others. Contrast this with the situation in rugby and football. While the England men’s rugby team is full of full-time professionals, the women’s team consists of individuals who fit two training sessions a day around full-time jobs. Meanwhile, Sian Massey is one of just three female officials currently working in professional football in England, two of whom have been subjected to sexist comments from high-profile individuals.

In some cases, inclusion in the Olympic Games is a major factor in changing attitudes and widening female participation. Such inclusion is only granted to sports that can demonstrate that they provide opportunities for members of both sexes. Thus, for example, attempts by rugby sevens to gain Olympic status sparked a drive to increase the participation of women. 2009 witnessed the inaugural Women’s Rugby Sevens World Cup, held alongside the men’s tournament in Dubai, in which the first female officials were appointed to the tournament panel.

There has also been progress in the fifteen-a-side game. On 21^st November 2009, the England women’s team played their fixture against New Zealand at Twickenham after the equivalent men’s match. This will be repeated on 13^th March this year for the men’s and women’s Six Nations fixtures against Scotland. Hosting the 2010 Women’s Rugby World Cup provided a huge boost to the game’s profile, with record numbers of participants and spectators involved. This tournament also saw ten female referees included in a panel of fourteen officials. Furthermore, on 18^th December 2010 Dana Teagarden became the first woman to referee a men’s international match. Such efforts have had a tangible effect on increasing participation, with women’s rugby now one of the fastest-growing sports in the country.

In football, too, there are signs of change on the horizon. A new Women’s Super League, the FAWSL, will be launched in April this year. Players will be paid by their clubs, and there will also be 20 FA-financed central contracts for England players, worth £16 000 a year. Overall, the FA is investing £3 million in the new league, which will feature eight teams, and a TV deal has been negotiated with ESPN. Hopefully, this will provide the publicity that women’s football so desperately needs. Equally important, it will make football a viable career path for women, at least for those at the top level of the game.

That is not to say that women’s football will now be able to “compete” with the men’s game, nor should it. What is needed is an opportunity for women’s football to be enjoyed on its own merits, as already exists in so many other sports. Hopefully, the FAWSL will go some way towards achieving this. Only when women’s sport is recognised and appreciated in its own right, and not as some kind of inferior imitation of men’s sport, can we move forward. It can only be hoped that comments like those of Keys and Gray will inspire a new generation of players, officials and fans to finally and definitively kick sexism out of sport.

Technology in sport: why football needs to catch up with the rest of the world

This is an article I wrote today about why football should follow other major sports that have introduced video technology. First published here 17/01/11.

Football’s powers that be need to realise what those in other sports have known for years – technology works.

After all, in just about every other major sport – rugby, cricket and tennis to name a few –officials use video technology to help them make important decisions.  In this area, it looks as though football has got a lot of catching up to do.

Firstly, we need to be clear what is at issue here. What we’re discussing is goal-line technology, specifically cameras on the goal line that would be used to help the officials decide whether or not the ball had crossed the line. Perhaps existing cameras could also be used to look for incidents in the build-up that would rule out a goal, much like the system currently in place in rugby.

In either case, it would be up to the referee to decide when to refer a decision to a television match official. The referee would also be able to instruct this official to look for any specific incidents in the build-up, such as a handball, that would make a goal invalid.

Leading the small minority opposing the introduction of this technology are the individuals in charge of FIFA. This is an organisation that supposedly governs the football world in the best interests of the game, and yet those at its head have failed to implement changes that almost everyone else agrees would benefit the sport.

In August last year, FIFA President Sepp Blatter announced that goal-line technology would be discussed at the International Football Association Board (IFAB) meeting in October. Once again, however, this has failed to produce any concrete results.

So, why has there still been no progress on this issue? To try to find out, let’s look at the objections that have been raised to the introduction of goal-line technology.

Firstly, we can examine the objection that is raised on the grounds of inclusiveness. It goes something like this: clubs below the top level would not be able to afford to introduce this technology, therefore it should not be introduced at all.

It is certainly true that a lot of clubs wouldn’t be able to implement these changes. However, to base an argument on these grounds ignores the fact that a two-tier system already exists in football. The financial disparity between Premiership and grassroots clubs is already so great that it’s hard to see what difference a couple of extra cameras will make.

We can now examine one of the most oft-repeated claims made by opponents of this change. This essentially says that introducing goal-line technology would in some way damage the spirit of the game, and ruin it as a spectacle for supporters.

To decide if this is true, we only need to look at the situation in other sports. Rugby, cricket and tennis have all brought in electronic review systems in recent years. In all of these cases, it would appear that the use of technology has added to, rather than detracted from, spectators’ enjoyment of their sport. In all of these cases, fans have embraced a change that they know will increase fairness and transparency in decision-making. I see no reason to believe that football fans will be any less accepting.

Finally we come to the assertion that mistakes by officials are part of what makes football so exciting. This excitement, so the argument goes, would be diminished through the introduction of technology, while the time it would take to refer a decision to a television referee would disrupt the flow of the game.

Well, I’m sure the Irish football fans who saw their team denied a place at the World Cup by Thierry Henry’s blatant handball were pretty ‘excited’ about it. The fact is, decisions like that are too important to be left to chance. And it’s hard to see how referrals would disrupt the flow of the game given that, by definition, the game stops when the ball is in the goal. Given that television companies have time to screen endless replays of every incident, it is hard to believe that referring the occasional decision to a television match official would be any more disruptive.

The fact that mistakes as serious as Henry’s handball, and Frank Lampard’s goal-that-wasn’t-except-that-it-clearly-was, are allowed to stand brings the game into disrepute. And failing to implement a system that would eliminate such errors is making football the laughing stock of the sporting world.

So, where does all of this leave FIFA? For many, it will surely only confirm their conception of a group of individuals completely divorced from the realities of the sport they govern. FIFA has the chance to rid itself of this image, and it has the duty to at least consider changes that have such widespread support in the footballing world. Zurich, are you listening?

A culture of cheating: how should officials deal with rule-breaking in rugby?

This is in article I wrote today about the culture of cheating that pervades professional rugby, and about what officials can, or should, be doing about it. First published here 07/01/11.

Rugby players have always tried to get away with as much as they can. That’s just part of the way the game works – players try to bend the rules, and it’s the referee’s job to keep them in line.

Recently, though, it seems like players have been able to get away with more and more. Whether it’s scrum halves feeding the ball into the second row, hookers throwing it in crooked at the line out or half the team being offside from the kickoff, rule-breaking seems increasingly easy to get away with.

And that’s without getting started on infringements at the breakdown. Here, rule-breaking isn’t just accepted, it seems to be positively encouraged. Anyone who’s ever watched the exploits of a certain Mr McCaw will know how often we see cheating praised as “great back row play”.

The culture around the game is one in which any play, legal or illegal, that gains a player’s team an advantage sees them showered with praise. In the professional era, where results can make or break careers, this is hardly surprising. In an environment where winning is everything, it’s understandable that players and coaches are prepared to do whatever it takes to secure victory.

So, everybody cheats. All the infringements I’ve mentioned are now ubiquitous in the professional game. But if every team cheats to about an equal degree, then doesn’t all the cheating just cancel itself out?

And if this is the case, where does it leave referees? What can, or indeed should, they do to combat a culture that shrugs its shoulders and accepts cheating as an inevitable facet of the professional game?

Perhaps it’s time for a healthy dose of pragmatism. When everybody’s breaking the same rules, to about the same degree, maybe it’s time to accept that trying to enforce those rules no longer serves any useful purpose. Surely consistent non-enforcement would be fairer than the situation we have now, and more realistic than expecting referees to spot every infraction.

More than this, though, clamping down on misdemeanours that players are used to getting away with will just make the game even more stop-start and disjointed than it already is. With scrums already eating up so much time and leading to so many free kicks and penalties, surely adding yet more offences to the list can’t be the answer.

We’ve now reached the stage where cheating seems to be accepted, and expected, by all those associated with professional rugby. Perhaps it’s time we all stopped complaining, gave these rules up for lost and moved on. Surely that’s better than compromising the quality of rugby we get to watch week in week out.

So, is it worth turning a blind eye for the sake of the game?

No, it isn’t. Because turning a blind eye is the way to destroy the game, not save it. It’s simple psychology – the more you let people get away with, the more they’ll try to get away with. Just think about spoilt children. Or footballers.

And once you start letting things go, it’s a slippery slope. Yes, clamping down on all these infringements will cause problems in the short term. Players will complain, and fans probably will too. And yes, referees are still going to miss the odd offence. But they can, and should, do more to stamp out the complacency that currently pervades the professional game.

It is the responsibility of officials to make it clear where the boundaries are, and to punish players who overstep those boundaries. That is the only way they can effectively protect the integrity of the sport they serve.

An evening with Gavin Hastings

This is a record of an interview I conducted with Gavin Hastings, and of a talk he gave at the Cambridge Union. The interview, the talk and writing up the article all happened in the same evening which certainly added to the excitement! He had plenty to say for himself, some of it not exactly PC - read on to find out more...

Gavin Hastings, ex-Scotland and Lions captain and OBE (which he jokes stands for “Old Bastard from Edinburgh”) is widely considered one of the greatest rugby players of all time. ­This week, proudly sporting his Hawks Club tie, he came to the Cambridge Union to address members of the university where he spent two years.

I caught up with him to find out about his best memories of student days and his illustrious career, as well as his views on some of the most pressing issues facing the game he so obviously loves.

His fondness for Cambridge was immediately obvious. He described his time here as “the best two years of my life”. Having studied Land Economics at Paisley College of Technology, he came down to Cambridge to complete the second and third years of a Land Economy degree. ­

The picture he painted of being hugely excited, but at the same time in awe of his new surroundings, is one that any fresher could empathise with. It was when he arrived at Grange Road for his first rugby training session, he said, that he knew he’d made what he described as “the best decision of my life”.

Selected for the Varsity match in 1984, he was part of the Cambridge side that demolished Oxford 33-6 to record a fifth successive victory.

His performance was impressive enough to see him made captain for the following year. Unfortunately, the Light Blues couldn’t go on to record a record sixth consecutive win, losing 7-6 in a tight game. Defeat taught Hastings valuable lessons, however, that he said have “carried me through for the rest of my life.”

So how important is the Varsity match today? Here he was unequivocal that “for students, it remains as important as it has always been.” He acknowledged that its status in the calendar isn’t what it once was, but firmly believed that Oxford and Cambridge can still be “a very good breeding ground” for the stars of the future.

This, he believed, is only enhanced by the presence of international players within the squad, who can help young players to “understand what it takes to become a player of international standing.”

After his talk, he was asked how sport at Cambridge should be funded to ensure it continues to produce talented players. He expressed the hope that university sport in the UK will become “as big as it is in America”, while also suggesting that well-known alumni should play a greater role in financing sports programmes.

“We have to latch onto these people”, he stated, adding that “I would like nothing more than to write a big fat cheque”. Of course, “at this point in my career it’s not possible”.

Shortly after his Varsity disappointment, Hastings won his first cap for Scotland in the Five Nations tournament in February 1986. Here he played alongside his brother Scott, who he described as “as much a friend as a brother”. ­ This proved to be the start of a ten-year international career that saw him win 61 caps for his country and score a record number of points for Scotland, a record that would not be surpassed until Chris Patterson broke it in 2008.

But what was his best moment? “From a very personal point of view”, he replied, “captaining the side that won in Paris for the first time in 26 years was my single proudest moment in a Scotland jersey”.

Hastings was to go on to wear not just the blue of Scotland but also the red of the British and Irish Lions. Having played in all three Tests in Australia in 1989, he was chosen to captain the side that toured New Zealand in 1993. Despite describing this as “the most challenging situation that I’d ever been put in”, he believed he was the right man for the job.

Few jobs can be more challenging than that of trying to pull together a disparate group of players from different countries and lead them to possibly the most fiercely competitive rugby nation on Earth. On the subject of captaincy, he soon learnt that “I wasn’t going to get on well with everybody”, and that worrying about this would have adversely affected his concentration. “I did a lot of growing up on that tour”, he reflected, showing the intense strain that players find themselves under in such situations.

At this point in the interview, he paused to consider the qualities a Lion needs. Mental toughness, he claimed, should be high on the list of requirements. “Some people aren’t mentally tough enough to cope”, he stated, also suggesting that in many cases the 35 players that make the grade at the start of a tour may no longer feature in the top choices by the end.

Given the pressure on these players, who did he think would be chosen to coach them on the 2013 tour? “I’ll be very surprised if the next Lions coach is not coaching an international team”, he replied, going on to add that “Andy Robinson will probably be in the frame”.

Asked during his talk whether he thought the Lions stood a realistic chance against the Southern Hemisphere teams, he replied that “It’s going to be incredibly difficult”. So how could we give them the best chance? His answer was simple: “We need to shorten the season to give players’ bodies a chance to recover”.

On this note, he also told me during our interview that he was worried about what shape players like Jonny Wilkinson, who have only ever played the game during the professional era, would be in fifteen years after their retirement.

Shortening the season wasn’t the only radical change he suggested to the professional game. Asked about the impact of professionalism on the game, he answered that while there have been huge improvements at the highest level, below that rugby has “lost its soul”. He lamented the loss of the rugby-watching culture he grew up with, and stated that much of the tradition and fun had “all but gone”.

His answer? For professionals, increase the size of the pitch to bring back the free-flowing game characteristic of the amateur era. And for everyone, make rugby a summer sport to increase enjoyment and get more young people involved.

He was optimistic about the impact of the 2012 London Olympics and the 2014 Glasgow Commonwealth Games, hoping that these will help sport to “become a bigger part of people’s lives”.

When asked during his talk about the global spread of rugby, he was confident that “Seven-a-side rugby is going to be the catalyst for spreading the game around the world”. He cited the ease of playing and understanding this form of the game as reasons why sevens players will become the “superstars” of rugby in a few years’ time.

However, Hastings also saw sevens serving another purpose. Asked by an audience member about the role of women in the sport, he replied that he was “not convinced that rugby is the best thing that women could do”. He went on to state that for him, watching women’s rugby was “not quite as exciting as watching the men’s game”.

His most controversial comments came when he stated that “­The sport for women is rugby sevens”. And the reason he gave why sevens is the sport that will broaden the game’s appeal across national and gender divides? “Fifteen-a-side is too technical for a lot of countries and a lot of women”. I think it’s fair to say that a significant proportion of the university population would disagree.

So, how to sum up my evening with Gavin Hastings? Well, he certainly proved he wasn’t afraid of controversy. His revelations were frequently surprising, often entertaining and sometimes downright scandalous. One thing’s for certain – he certainly left us with plenty to talk about.